For the past several decades, the most popular societal response to crime
in the U.S. has been incarceration (Tolan & Gorman-Smith, 1997). Accordingly,
the number of prison inmates has increased dramatically in recent years,
from 292 per 100,000 adults in 1990 to over 475 per 100,000 adults in 1999
(U.S. Department of Justice [DOJ], 2000). In some states, the costs associated
with this level of institutionalization now rival the cost of public education
(e.g., Greenwood, Modell, Rydell, & Chiesa, 1996).

Of the 1,366,721 inmates held in state or Federal prison in 1999, over half
(i.e., 721,500) were parents. These parents had an estimated 1,498,800 children
under the age of 18 years (U.S. DOJ, 2000). This count represents an increase
in the number of children affected by parental incarceration by over 500,000
children since 1990. The majority of these children live in situations where
it is highly likely that their parent's incarceration has a direct impact
on family functioning: almost 50% of incarcerated parents lived with their
children prior to their prison admission, and over 80% report that their
children currently live with the other parent or with a relative (U.S. DOJ,
2000).

The children of incarcerated parents have been a relatively invisible population.
Corrections systems have tended to view male and female inmates as neither
deserving of nor desiring contact with their children (Jeffries, Menghraj,
& Hairston, 2001). Further, while a proportion of the children of inmates
are in foster care (from 5 to 10%; U.S. DOJ, 2000), the children of incarcerated
parents per se have not been considered the responsibility of any traditional
governmental entity, such as child welfare, mental health, or the juvenile
court.

The one aspect of childhood that has been attended to in prison has been
the beginning. Throughout the history of women's institutions, the parenting
role of incarcerated women simply could not be ignored because of inmate
pregnancy (Jeffries et al., 2001). Some studies have reported up to as many
as 25% of female inmates being either pregnant at intake or haven given birth
during the year before incarceration (Church, 1990; Holt, 1982). In contrast,
ignored altogether has been the other side of childhood, adolescence. At
any given time, an estimated 15 to 40% of the children of incarcerated parents
are teenagers (e.g., Sharp & Marcus-Mendoza, 2001; Hairston, 1989; Henriques,
1982; Fritsch & Burkhead, 1981; Zalba, Tandy, & Nesbit, 1964). Those
who are not yet teens, soon will be.

By virtue of their developmental stage, it is these forgotten adolescents
who have the potential to have the greatest impact on society at large, and
in this chapter, we focus on the most powerful problem that they can exhibit,
antisocial behavior. We overview the relationship between parental criminality
and incarceration and adolescent antisocial behavior, discuss how these factors
might be linked through parenting, place this link within the context of
the life course development of antisocial behavior, and then discuss
interventions that might make a difference in improving outcomes for the
children of incarcerated parents.

We define antisocial behavior as a cluster of related behaviors,
including disobedience, aggression, temper tantrums, lying, stealing, and
violence (see Patterson, 1982). While some of these behaviors are normative
at certain ages of child development, it is these behaviors, in concert and
during adolescence, that serve as the strongest predictors of adjustment
problems, including criminal behavior, during adulthood (Kohlberg, Ricks,
& Snarey, 1984). From 40% to 75% of youths who are arrested for delinquent
acts and/or who meet psychiatric criteria for a conduct disorder
are arrested in adulthood (Harrington, Fudge, Rutter, Pickles, & Hill,
1991; McCord, 1991). Further, as many as 40% of such youth meet formal
psychiatric criteria for antisocial personality disorder during adulthood
(Harrington et al., 1991; Robins, 1966; Zoccolillo, Pickles, Quinton, &
Rutter, 1992).

Youth who become involved in criminal behavior at young ages (i.e., late
childhood or early adolescence) appear to be at an especially high risk for
continuing such behaviors during adulthood (Gendreau, Little, & Goggin,
1996; Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, & Green, 1991; Moffitt, 1993; Patterson,
Capaldi, & Bank, 1991). These same youth are also at high risk for other
problems, such as academic difficulties, substance abuse and early sexual
behavior, each of which may have serious long term consequences (Dryfoos,
1990; Hawkins, 1995; Howell, 1995). Accordingly, during young adulthood,
individuals who displayed more serious antisocial behaviors in childhood
tend to have greater difficulties than their peers in work; tend to abuse
substances; and tend to have problems in interpersonal relationships such
as marriage or parenting (Caspi, Elder, & Herbener, 1990; Farrington,
1991; Magnusson, 1992; Quinton & Rutter, 1988; Robins, 1993;
Rönkä & Pulkkinen, 1995).

The relationships between early starting youth antisocial behavior and
problematic outcomes during adolescence and adulthood have led us and other
researchers to view such behavior as a key marker of maladjustment (Reid
& Eddy, 1997; Reid, Patterson, & Snyder, in press). Further, it is
a marker that has significant societal significance. Youth antisocial behavior
is considered one of the most costly child mental health problems in the
U.S. today (Kazdin, 1994).

Parent Criminality and the Antisocial Behavior of Adolescents

In their meta-analysis of 34 prospective longitudinal studies of the development
of antisocial behavior, Lipsey and Derzon (1998) found that having an antisocial
parent or parents was one of the strongest predictors of violent or serious
delinquency in adolescence and young adulthood (see Table 1). The values
listed in Table 1 are estimated correlations that range from 0 (no relationship
between the predictor and outcome) to 1.0 (perfect relationship between the
predictor and outcome). While the correlation between parent criminality
and the violent or serious delinquency of their offspring are seemingly small
(i.e., r = .16 to .23), they do indicate a meaningful increase in the odds,
or likelihood, that a youth with an antisocial parent (defined as the top
25% most antisocial parents in the population) will himself display
antisocial behavior. Assuming an overall base rate of violent or serious
delinquency in the population at large as 8% (Rutter, Cox, Tupling, Berger,
& Yule, 1975; McGee, Feehan, Williams, & Anderson, 1992), the youth
with the most antisocial parent(s) are from 3 to 6 times more likely to exhibit
violent or serious delinquency than the youth of the least antisocial parents.

Table 1
The Top 10 Middle Childhood and Early Adolescent Predictors of Violent or
Serious Delinquent or Criminal Behavior at Age 15 to 25

Age Predictor Measured

Middle Childhood (age 6 to 11 years)

Early Adolescence (age 12 to 14
years)

Child general
offenses

.38

Child social
ties

.39

Child substance
use

.30

Peer antisocial
behavior

.37

Child gender

.26

Child general
offenses

.26

Family socioeconomic
status

.24

Child
aggression

.19

Parent antisocial behavior

.23

Child school
attitude/performance

.19

Child
aggression

.21

Child psychological
condition

.19

Child
ethnicity

.20

Parent-child
relations

.19

Child psychological
condition

.15

Child gender

.19

Parent-child
relations

.15

Child physical
violence

.18

Child social
ties

.15

Parent antisocial behavior

.16

Note. Adapted from Lipsey & Derzon (1998). Total sample size contributing
to the parent antisocial behavior mean effect size for age 6 to 11 years
n = 1049, and for age 12 to 14 years n = 442.

Of importance in prediction, however, is not only how often a predictor variable
is right (e.g., the child of a criminal parent becomes a delinquent) but
also how often the predictor is wrong (e.g., the child of a criminal parent
does not become a delinquent). In this regard, based on Lipsey and Derzons
estimates, from 15 to 20% of the youth of the most antisocial parent(s) will
become delinquent, and from 47 to 62% of all of those who will become delinquent
will have at least one antisocial parent. In contrast, from 94 to 96% of
those without an antisocial parent or parents will indeed not become delinquent,
and from 77 to 78% of those who will not become delinquent will not have
antisocial parents. Thus, from 22 to 23% of those who will not become delinquent
will have antisocial parents, and from 39 to 53% of those who will become
delinquent will not have antisocial parents. Taken together, these percentages
simply indicate that parent criminality is an important risk
factor for adolescent antisocial behavior. Clearly, risk implies a level
of probability rather than a sense of certainty.

Which parent is antisocial does appear to be of some importance. For example,
data from the Oregon Youth Study (OYS), a longitudinal study of 206 fourth
grade boys who were recruited during the early 1980s from randomly
selected public elementary schools in neighborhoods at risk for
delinquency, are presented in Table 2. At the beginning of the study, 22%
of the boys had a father in the home (whether biological or step) who had
been arrested as an adult, 9% had a mother who had been arrested, and 2%
had a mother and a father who had been arrested. As can be seen in Table
2, it is clear that youth with parents who have been arrested as adults are
at much greater risk to be arrested two or more times during adolescence,
particularly if the parent arrested was the mother. While the OYS sample
is predominately white, Robins and associates found similar relationships
between mother, father, and youth arrests in an African American sample (e.g.,
Robins, West, & Herjanic, 1975).

Table 2
The Relationship Between Parental Arrests and the Police Detainment of Their
Children through Adolescence (n = 206)

Number of Police
Detainments of Child to Age 18 Years

0

1

2 or more

Both parents
arrested

0%

20%

80%

Mother
arrested

17

6

78

Father
arrested

22

28

50

Neither
arrested

60

20

20

Antisocial Outcomes for the Adolescent Children of Incarcerated Parents

While parent criminality appears to be related to adolescent child antisocial
behavior, it is less clear whether one outcome of parent criminality,
incarceration, is also related. To date, there appear to be no longitudinal
studies of the children of incarcerated parents (see Gabel, 1992). The few
cross-sectional studies conducted indicate that from 10% to 30% of the youth
of incarcerated parents had been detained by police for delinquent behavior
(e.g., Myers, Smarsh, Amlund-Hagen, & Kennon, 1999; Johnston, 1995a).
Such values are difficult to interpret given that in some communities, it
is normative for youth to be detained by the police at some point during
adolescence. In the aforementioned OYS, 55% of the boys had been arrested
at least once by the age of 18 years. Similarly, Wolfgang, Figalio, and Sellen
(1972) reported that 33% of the boys in their Philadelphia study had at least
one police contact before adulthood.

Antisocial behavior is one of many problematic behaviors that the adolescent
children of incarcerated parents are more likely to display than younger
children of incarcerated parents. Sharp and Marcus-Mendoza (2001) surveyed
a random sample of 144 female drug offenders in Oklahoma, the state with
currently the highest percentage of females in their incarcerated population.
Mothers were asked about child problems that began after the incarceration.
While only 6% of adolescent children were reportedly arrested, a wide variety
of other problem behaviors were reported with a higher frequency, including
behaviors for which they could have been arrested. Across most of the various
behaviors, adolescents were reported as displaying more problems than children
in the other age groups (see Table 3).

Table 3
Percentage of Children of Incarcerated Mothers Displaying Problem Behavior
Since the Incarceration Began

It is not surprising that there is not clear evidence of a link between parent
incarceration per se and adolescent antisocial behavior. Numerous risk factors
for child adjustment problems have been found to be present in a significant
proportion of families with incarcerated parents, and it seems unlikely that
any one factor, including one as powerful as incarceration, would dominate
in the explanation of child problems within this population. Most notably,
many families of incarcerated parents face poverty and frequent shifting
of housing and school situations (e.g., Johnston, 1995a; Norman, 1995) before,
during, and after a period of incarceration. These types of factors are to
child adjustment problems (Reid, Patterson, & Snyder, in press).

However, they only provide a context for the functioning of a family. Some
children within families living in difficult contexts flourish, some flounder,
and some fail completely. While there are many hypotheses about factors that
would explain such differences, research on resiliency in the face of such
difficulties is still in its infancy (with some notable exceptions; e.g.,
Werner, 1996). To date, one candidate that has garnered some support as a
mediator between difficult contexts and child outcomes is parenting. This
is particularly in terms of youth antisocial behavior (see Reid et al., in
press).

One transition that children undergo when a parent is incarcerated is a change
in family structure. When a father goes to prison, the children's mother
usually continues to care for his children, although stepfathers, boyfriends,
and grandparents usually play a parenting role as well (U.S. DOJ, 2000).
In contrast, when a mother goes to prison, the father cares for the child
only 25% of the time; children most typically live with a grandmother (51%),
although some live with another relative (20%), a family friend (4%), or
in a foster home (11%; U.S. DOJ, 1993; U.S. DOJ, 2000). Further, the majority
of children of incarcerated mothers experience at least one change in placement
or caregiver during the incarceration (Johnston, 1995a). Thus, children of
incarcerated parents often experience a simultaneous loss of one caregiver
and a gain of one or more new caregivers.

Evidence from four recent studies suggests that parental transitions influence
child and adolescent noncompliance and delinquency via their direct effects
on parenting. A study of 198 married and divorced lower- to middle-class
families found that the effect of divorce on child adjustment was mediated
by mother-child interaction (Pett, Wampold, Turner, & Vaughan-Cole, 1999).
Similarly, Martinez and Forgatch (2001) measured family structure transitions,
parenting practices, and child adjustment in a sample of 238 divorcing mother
families with sons in the first through the third grade. Analyses revealed
that the impact of the number of family transitions on their son's academic
functioning, acting-out behavior, and emotional adjustment was mediated by
parenting practices.

Capaldi and Patterson (1991) measured child and maternal antisocial behavior,
parenting practices, and the number of marital structure transitions in a
sample of 206 families with boys during late childhood and early adolescence.
Results suggested that the effect of transitions on child antisocial behavior
was mediated through both maternal antisocial behavior and unskilled parenting
practices. In an extension of Capaldis study, Eddy, Bridges Whaley,
and Stoolmiller (2001) examined these relationships further into adolescence.
Again, family structure transitions impacted youth delinquency via parenting
behaviors such as supervision. However, neither family structure transitions
nor maternal antisocial behavior were related to adolescent delinquency when
in the presence of indicators of parenting variables such supervision.

Taken together, this work suggests that effective parenting practices can
dampen the effects of stressors that children of incarcerated parents
experience, which in turn, should decrease their risk for negative outcomes.
Unfortunately, many incarcerated men and women report risk-laden childhoods
that provided them with less than adequate parenting and parental role models,
and such increases the likelihood that they will have difficulty with parenting
their own children. For example, in one study, relative to non-inmates, male
and female inmates reported receiving more authoritarian parenting (i.e.,
harsh, controlling, punitive, with little warmth) during childhood (Chipman,
Olsen, Klein, Hart, & Robinson, 2000). Female inmates reported receiving
the highest levels of authoritarian parenting of all groups. Not surprisingly,
then, childhood physical abuse is commonly reported by incarcerated parents,
especially women (e.g., U.S. DOJ, 1993). The same is true of sexual abuse.

Given this backdrop, from the moment of conception, the children of incarcerated
parents are likely to be exposed to numerous risk factors for later problem
behaviors, including child antisocial behavior. For example, the Children
of Offenders study (Johnson & O'Leary, 1987) reported that 77% of the
children of currently or previously incarcerated women had been prenatally
exposed to drugs and/or alcohol, which is related to a host of problems during
childhood and adolescence (e.g., Olds, Henderson, & Kitzman, 1994). Across
childhood, longitudinal researchers have found that parents who have antisocial
characteristics are more likely to use harsh and ineffective parenting practices,
which from time to time may cross the threshold for abuse (e.g., Capaldi
& Patterson, 1991; DeBaryshe, Patterson, & Capaldi, 1993; Patterson
& Yoerger, 1999). One consequence of this is that 2% of male inmates
and 10% of female inmates have children in foster care (U.S. DOJ, 2000).

Since parental incarceration may occur at any point in time during a
childs life, and aspects of the incarceration may reverberate throughout
child development, a meaningful discussion about the impact of parental
incarceration on adolescents and the role that parenting might play seems
most appropriate to us with the context of the overall life course. As a
framework for such a discussion, Figure 1 presents our coercion
theory conceptualization of a life-course trajectory toward antisocial
behavior and serious delinquency (Patterson, 1982; Patterson, Reid, &
Dishion, 1992; Reid, 1993, Reid & Eddy, 1997). Illustrated in the figure
are our hypotheses on the most powerful and potentially malleable antecedents
of antisocial behavior, delinquency and substance use during childhood and
adolescence. In previous studies, each antecedent in the model has been shown
to be a significant predictor either of a later antecedent of adolescent
antisocial behavior or of long term maladaptation.

Within this model, the development of child antisocial behavior can gain
momentum even before birth and then increase in velocity and intensity through
successive, cascading antecedents during childhood and adolescence. Throughout
such a developmental process, family factors play a powerful role. Longitudinal
studies have provided strong evidence that use of clear and consistent discipline
techniques, close monitoring and supervision of the child, high rates of
positive reinforcement, and secure, responsive parent-child attachment
relationships are related to prosocial outcomes in childhood, adolescence,
and adulthood (Fagot & Pears, 1996; Fisher, Ellis, & Chamberlain,
1999; Patterson, 1982; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). However, the
exact nature, topography, and functions of family factors change markedly
over development.

Figure 1.
Life Course Model of the Development of Antisocial Behavior (adapted from
Reid & Eddy, 1997).

Before birth, direct parental antecedents have to do with nutrition, toxins
and maternal stress. Although these risks are most directly occasioned by
the mother, they are in turn significantly affected by contextual and social
factors. Across infancy and toddlerhood, parenting behaviors become critical
to set the stage for general psychological and social development. As the
child matures, specific parenting factors involving direct socialization
emerge as critical factors. With the transition to school in particular,
the key parenting factors become more complex, involve different social domains
and collaborations with other socialization agents. Finally, during adolescence,
the parents must deal not only with mentoring and monitoring their
youngsters activities, but also their transitions to other primary
relationships, their increasing independence, and their increasing individual
accountability.

Despite the importance of parenting behaviors, the display of antisocial
behavior by youth is clearly an outcome of the interactive process between
parent, child, and others. It is this process that drives the development
of antisocial behavior forward. Research on the stability of conduct-related
problems indicates that serious child problem behaviors commonly begin at
an early age in the context of parent- and sibling-child relationships when
some or all of effective parenting strategies and qualities are not present
(e.g., Olweus, 1980; Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992 ; Robins, 1978;
Speltz, DeKlyen, & Greenberg,1999). Early failures in discipline, continued
child noncompliance, insecure parent-child attachment relationships, and
low levels of prosocial skills appear to set the stage for reactions from
teachers, peers, and parents that cause the child to be rejected and isolated
(Fagot & Pears, 1996; Patterson, 1982; Reid & Eddy, 1997).

Such responses further compound compliance and discipline problems, causing
a gradual escalation of coercive behaviors (i.e., aversion followed by
withdrawal; Patterson, 1982) used by family members to control family
interactions. There is compelling evidence that once these interactional
patterns are learned and used by the child, he/she becomes at risk for problems
across the span of child and adolescent development and into adulthood (Kazdin,
1987; Walker, Shinn, O'Neill, & Ramsey, 1987; Kern, Klepac, & Cole,
1996; Schneider, Atkinson, & Tardif, 2001).

During adolescence, youngsters are beginning the transition from family to
peer relationships and independence. As clearly documented in the recent
U.S. Surgeon Generals report on youth violence (U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, 2001), the factors that place adolescents at highest
risk for serious delinquency have to do with their peers. For the most part,
delinquency is a social endeavor, with most youth crimes involving more than
one youngster (Zimring, 1981). Children who associate with non-delinquent
friends seldom become delinquent themselves (Dishion & McMahon, 1998).
Low parent involvement in adolescent relationships with peers is strongly
related to association with antisocial peers, and is occasioned by such factors
as parental antisocial behavior, parental transitions, and poverty (e.g.,
Eddy et al., 2001). Over time, the effects of training in the home for coercive
interaction styles and antisocial behaviors ultimately generalize to the
school setting, to relationships with other adults, and to the peer group,
and set up a context that is primed to produce criminality.

Within our model, incarceration is one of many risk factors that
place extreme stress on families and make parenting more difficult. Parental
incarceration likely assists in the further cascade of problems for a child,
but it seems unlikely that it initiates such a cascade, except in a small
proportion of families (e.g., Sack, Seidler, & Thomas, 1976). If one
considers the idea that parenting could mediate the relationship between
parental incarceration and child outcomes, including adolescent antisocial
behavior, what might help parents better mitigate such risk?

In coercion theory, socialization, including parenting, is viewed as a highly
interactive process, comprising daily interactions between the child and
the primary people in his or her world (i.e., parents, siblings, friends,
teachers) and offering numerous opportunities for success or failure. During
the incarceration of a parent, providing these individuals, particularly
the primary caretaker(s), with the skills needed to positive socialize the
affected children could go a long way towards mitigating risk.

However, given that (1) the majority of inmates do continue to have at least
some contact with their children (90% of women, 80% of men; Morton &
Williams, 1998) during their prison stay, (2) most inmates will be out of
prison within a few years, and (3) many former inmates will resume at least
some parenting duties (U.S. DOJ, 2000), the role of incarcerated parents
in mitigating poor outcomes should not be ignored. Certainly, regular interaction
between parent and child is limited for many parents while incarcerated:
only 62% of male and 78% of female inmates report monthly contact with their
children, with mail (50% of men, 66% of women) and phone (42% of men, 54%
of women) being the most frequent media for contact (U.S. DOJ, 2000). In
person monthly visits are reported by only 20% of men and women. The scant
anecdotal evidence that exists on the impact of prison visitation on children
suggests positive influences on children.

Yet the most important role that the majority of incarcerated parents will
play in the lives of their children is on the outside of the prison walls,
and once an individual who happens to be a parent is locked up, their prison
stay may provide them with a chance that might not have existed previously
to prepare for their role as parent. For some parents, the prison environment
provides access to services that may neither be accessible nor utilized
elsewhere. We have seen this phenomenon in our studies. For example, over
the past decade, we have been conducting a longitudinal study of a sample
of high rate juvenile offender males from our county (see Chamberlain &
Reid, 1998; Eddy & Chamberlain, 2000). As these youth have entered young
adulthood, we have been closely monitoring the happenings in their lives,
and their feelings about those happenings, via monthly telephone calls. One
question of interest has been how prison and jail influences the lives of
these young adults.

Table 4 presents data from the past two years on the impact of being in lock-up
on participation in educational and therapeutic programs. During this time
period, 16% of participants were locked up for the full period, 26% spent
some time in lock-up, and 55% spent no time in lock-up. Clearly, when these
individuals are in lock-up, they are more likely to participate in both self-help
groups and to take classes. This increased participation in programs could
be capitalized upon as an opportunity to provide programming to inmates that
might prevent the development of antisocial behavior in their children. Further,
having a parent in prison could serve as referral source for parenting skill
training and support services for caregivers and for children on the outside.
In this regard, being in prison could be considered a risk screen
that does not require a new statewide testing campaign.

Table 4
Involvement in Programs In and Out of Prison

Men with calls when in and out
of prison

Men with no prison calls

In prison calls

Out of prison calls

Men with only prison calls

Average Percent of Phone Interviews
in which Activity Reported

Attending self
help groups

0%

23%

19%

17%

Taking classes
or lessons

9

19

9

39

Percent Reporting Activity during
at Least One Monthly Call

Attending self
help groups

13%

53%

33%

50%

Taking classes
or lessons

33

53

20

80

The Current Status of Parenting Education in Prison

The majority of jurisdictions in the U.S. offer parenting programs in at
least some of their institutions (Clement, 1993). A national survey indicated
that the modal parenting program in women's institutions was taught over
a 2- to 4-month period for 2 hours per week and included 25 inmates per class
(Clement, 1993). Approximately 60% of jurisdictions with parenting programs
reported having parent-child visitation opportunities that were separate
from the regular visitation in the institution, and 80% of these reported
the existence of agencies within their jurisdiction that coordinated
transportation of children to prison. Only 28% of the jurisdictions with
parenting programs for inmates also had some type of program for caregivers.

In another national survey, over 50 potential programs for incarcerated or
ex-offender fathers were identified from various directories, but only 14
were confirmed to still be in existence and to be relevant to fathers or
their families (Jeffries et al., 2001). Of these programs, 86% included a
parent education component. The typical program included sessions on child
development and discipline, with courses lasting from 1- to 4-months for
2 hours per week. Fifty percent of the programs included facilitated parent/child
visits, 40% included some type of auxiliary program for caregivers, and most
programs used a curriculum that was developed by the current or a previous
instructor, rather than a published curriculum. In focus groups with inmates,
common complaints included a lack of information on parenting from a distance
and on how to negotiate the transition back into the community in terms of
parenting.

Unfortunately, the number of institutions that actually operate parenting
programs and the participation rates in these programs are unclear, and it
appears that both numbers may be quite small. For example, in a survey of
prison programming conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, Morash, Haar, and
Rucker (1994) found that only 4% of women and 1% of men reported participating
in parenting counseling. Although opportunities for participating in parent
education may be slim, there is evidence that incarcerated men and women
are eager to participate in such programs. In one maximum-security prison,
for example, despite the fact that the inmates were facing long sentences
and had limited contact with their children, 80% indicated that they were
willing to strengthen and improve their parenting skills (Hairston, 1989).

While there are a variety of programs around the country, and there does
appear to be interest amongst inmates in these programs, very little is known
about the impact of these programs on the children of incarcerated parents.
Recent reviewers found only six evaluation studies of programs for incarcerated
mothers (Young & Smith, 2000). Only three of these studies included a
comparison group (Moore & Clement, 1998; Showers, 1993; Snyder-Joy &
Carlo, 1998). In our own review of the literature, we found only four other
comparison studies of a parenting program for inmates (Bayse, Allgood, &
Van Wyk, 1991; Block & Potthast, 1998; Harrison, 1997; Landreth &
Lobaugh, 1998). The interventions in these 7 studies varied from parenting
discussion groups to modifications of the sparsely studied Systematic Training
for Effective Parenting program (STEP; Dinkmeyer & McKay, 1989). All
studies included the pre- and post-intervention measurement of parental attitudes
and/or knowledge, and most studies found at least one significant and positive
effect on such. Only one study measured the perceptions of children, and
only one study asked parents to report on child behavior. Neither of these
studies found effects on children. Unfortunately, none of the studies included
a follow-up measurement to examine long term effects. Further, none of the
studies attempted to monitor the fidelity of the delivery of the intervention.

What is most disconcerting about the programs that have been investigated
is their disconnection from the emerging body of scientific literature on
the development, prevention and treatment of child antisocial behavior (see
Stoff, Breiling, & Maser, 1997). Traditionally, researchers in corrections
have been isolated from researchers in complimentary fields such as developmental
and clinical psychology and vice versa. Thus, the work that has gone on in
either set of fields has not been informed by progress in the other field.
One result is that none of the parenting programs that have been studied
within a prison context appeared to utilize the core elements of parenting
interventions that do have some scientific support (see Eddy, 2001).

It is definitely the case that children of incarcerated parents, young and
old, carry heavy burdens of risk; that many of these parents continue to
influence their children (or fetuses, in the case of pregnant inmates) both
while in prison and after release; and that many inmates will become parents
for the first time after release. The fact that the valuable and relevant
research literature on the development of youth problem behavior and
on the many effective parenting interventions based on that literature has
not been mined systematically to help children of incarcerated parents creates
tremendous opportunities for the development of effective interventions for
this high risk but neglected group. It is our position that the interventions
already shown to improve parenting, and those shown to provide strong parenting
for children placed out of the home, can be readily adapted to fit the particular
needs and circumstances of incarcerated parents and their children.

Parenting interventions have been tailored and scientifically evaluated at
several points along the developmental life course, from nurse visitation
before and after birth; to skills training programs for parents of preschool,
elementary and middle school aged children; to outpatient and residential
interventions for at risk and high risk adolescents that include a family
focus. Key to each of these interventions is the development of specific
parenting skills and the provision of the mentoring and support necessary
to develop a sense of mastery and confidence in the parents. In many
interventions, the work is of two sorts: didactic instruction and practice
of skills, often done in groups; and individual follow-up to tailor the skills
to the specific situation of a given family, including the supervised practice
of the skills with children.

Over the past few years, a variety of task forces around the country have
attempted to evaluate this growing database on the outcomes of family-based
interventions, and identify which interventions are best practices
for the prevention and treatment of child problems. Two outcomes of particular
interest for these task forces have been antisocial behavior (e.g., aggression,
violence, rule breaking) and substance use. Many of these task forces have
been sponsored by federally funded entities, such as the Department of Education,
the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, and the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention.

Nurse Home Visitation

David Olds and colleagues developed a comprehensive prevention strategy for
economically disadvantaged mothers (Olds et al., 1998a). Delivered by nurses
in the homes of participants, the intervention is targeted at improving prenatal
care and maternal health as well as providing other support and educational
services for single mothers living in high risk circumstances. Specifically,
the intervention includes procedures designed to get the pregnant mothers
to reduce or quit smoking, to reduce the use of other substances, to provide
basic training and support in parenting, to increase the spacing in time
between subsequent pregnancies, and to provide mentoring to improve educational
and job skills. The program begins in the third trimester of pregnancy and
continues through the second year of a childs life.

In a randomized study of nurse home visitation, Olds, Henderson, Cole, Eckenrode,
Kitzman, Luckey, Pettit, Sidora, Morris, and Powers (1998b) demonstrated
substantial preventive effects not only on several early antecedents of conduct
problems (e.g. child abuse, coercive parenting, parental rejection), but
also on delinquent behavior by the target children 15 years following program
termination. The impressive and long-term success of his intervention strategy
constitutes heavy support for the notion that decreasing parental substance
use, increasing the skill and support of parents, reducing physical abuse
and harsh discipline, and creating a stable, predictable and safe early
environment are key ingredients to any early prevention strategy for conduct
and related problems.

Parent Management Training

A variety of research teams around the country have developed and tested
interventions that train parents in family management skills
(see Patterson, Reid, & Eddy, in press). Known as parent management training
(PMT), these behavioral interventions emphasize hands-on instruction and
intensive practice in positive reinforcement, discipline, monitoring, and
family problem solving (Eddy, 2001; Sanders & Dadds, 1993). Parents are
the main focus of the intervention, but children are often included at various
points as well. Intervention may last from four weeks to several months,
with meetings usually held once a week.

PMT began as an intervention for use in outpatient mental health settings,
but over the years has been adapted to inpatient, school, and community settings.
Further, PMT interventions have been designed for children across the development
continuum. Within experimental or quasi-experimental designs, participants
in PMT interventions have demonstrated reductions in a wide variety of problems,
including child antisocial behavior as rated by parents and teachers (e.g.,
Webster-Stratton & Hammond, 1997; Webster-Stratton, 1998; Webster-Stratton,
Hollingsworth, & Kolpacoff, 1989), police contacts (Eddy, Reid, &
Fetrow, 2000), number of days institutionalized (Chamberlain & Reid,
1998), problem behaviors at school (Forgatch & DeGarmo, 1999), physical
aggression on the playground (Reid, Eddy, Fetrow, & Stoolmiller, 1999),
depression (Forgatch & DeGarmo, 1999), and substance use (Eddy et al.,
2001). Longitudinal evaluations of PMT interventions have unveiled enduring
benefits to child adjustment at least 2 (Martinez & Forgatch, in press)
to 3 years (Eddy et al., 2001) after completion. Further, several studies
have demonstrated that the effects of intervention on child adjustment were
fully mediated by changes in parenting practices (Eddy & Chamberlain,
2000; Forgatch & DeGarmo, 1999).

Multisystemic Treatment

Developed by Scott Henggeler and colleagues, Multisystemic Treatment (MST)
utilizes a variety of therapeutic techniques, including parent management
training, to assist parents and children in gaining the skills and the resources
they need to be address child and family problems (see Henggeler et al.,
1998a). The key to treatment is a clinician that is available 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week. Treatment sessions usually occur in the home, and may
occur daily. At various times, sessions may involve a wide variety of pertinent
individuals, including extended family members, neighbors, teachers, and
peers.

Randomized studies of MST have found positive impacts on juvenile offender
youth. For example, relative to youth on probation, youth who received MST
were less likely to be arrested, less likely to be locked up, and less likely
to self-report various crimes (see Henggeler et al., 1998a). In another study
contrasting MST to individual therapy, only 22% of youth in the MST group
had reoffended within five years following treatment termination versus 71%
of those in individual therapy (Henggeler, Melton, & Smith, 1992). Outcomes
from a variety of other studies are described in Henggeler, Mihalic, Rone,
Thomas, & Timmons-Mitchell (1998b).

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care

Designed by Patti Chamberlain and colleagues, Multidimensional Treatment
Foster Care (MTFC) is a residential version of parent management training
(Chamberlain, 1994). The program is designed to provide a minimally restrictive,
alternative family situation for youngsters who are removed from their homes
by the courts. In addition to providing the youth with structure, supervision
and mentoring, the program works toward reunification and support of the
natural family. Therapists work with the youth and with the natural parents,
foster parents receive training, supervision, and support (including access
to a therapist 24 hours a day), and a case manager coordinates the efforts
of the team. The intervention attempts to decrease affiliation with deviant
peers, increase prosocial behaviors, decrease youth antisocial behavior,
and increase parenting skills in the natural family.

In a number of randomized studies, Chamberlain and her colleagues (Chamberlain,
Fisher, & Moore, in press; Chamberlain & Reid, 1998) have shown that
it is both feasible and cost-effective to train and support carefully selected
foster parents to provide multi-systemic treatment and care for extremely
delinquent boys and girls. Significant impacts have been found on delinquent
behavior following treatment. For example, only 59% of serious juvenile offender
boys in the MTFC group were rearrested within one year following intervention
versus 93% of boys in services-as-usual group homes (Chamberlain & Reid,
1998).

An Integrated Preventive Intervention Model

If delivered in concert and to the population of inmates and the caregivers
of their children at large, modified versions of the four interventions presented
above have great potential for significantly reducing problems in the population
of the adolescent children of incarcerated parents. Nurses could deliver
the nurse home visitation program to pregnant inmates, and children could
stay with their mothers in prison during infancy while the mother continues
to receive parenting and life skills advice and training. There is historical
precedent for babies staying with their mothers in prison (Jeffries et al.,
2001), and several states around the country do have residential programs
for infants (e.g., New York; Washington). Since many female inmates will
become pregnant when they leave prison, key content from the nurse home
visitation program also could be delivered via groups to mothers of child
bearing age in the prison setting in preparation for future pregnancies.

Parent management training, if tailored for delivery with inmates and with
caregivers, could prove to be the workhorse of a larger prevention
strategy. Through corrections departments or via contractors, group-based
programs could be provided to the population of inmates early on in a sentence
to improve their interactions with their children during the incarceration
period (i.e., improve the quality of interaction via phone, letters, and
in person visits). More positive interactions between parent and child during
this period of time could start a cascade of positive outcomes for both parent
and child. Additional parenting programs could be designed for inmates just
prior to release to prepare for parenting on the outside.

Group-based programs that complemented the inmate program could be developed
for the caregivers of the children of incarcerated parents and offered in
community settings. While less financially feasible than group-based programs,
parent management training could also be offered in the community on an
individual basis for caregivers with children who are exhibiting serious
antisocial behavior. The provision of services on the outside to caregivers
would most logically be delivered by the non-profit sector, and a variety
of programs could be available, including faith based programs.

For incarcerated parents who have youth who are in foster care or are involved
in the juvenile justice system, programs with the skill development and support
characteristics of MTFC and MST could be earmarked treatments. Through these
interventions, a variety of family needs could be addressed, and the programs
could be integrated with programs on the inside, like parent management training,
to improve outcomes for youth. This group of interventions would clearly
require more open communication between service systems than exists in most
states. Information would need to be shared so that families could be identified
and resources appropriately targeted.

Finally, support services could be established for easing the transition
home (see Travis, Solomon, & Waul, 2001) and helping parents assume positive
roles in the lives of their children when they return home from prison. These
services might include support groups, mentors, or hotlines available for
guidance and referral. One idea that we have been considering in our state
has been a mentor available via phone 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for a
given period of time (e.g., 6 months) after an ex-inmate returns home. The
ex-inmate could call for parenting advice as needed, and the mentor would
check in on a weekly basis. The mentor could run weekly support groups for
those who desire such. If needed for a particular family, more intensive
mentoring could be delivered through a version of MST.

Whether or not parenting that occurs from behind the prison walls significantly
shapes the life of a child or an adolescent, and further, whether constructive
parenting from prison can mediate deleterious impacts on youth, remain empirical
questions. Even data about such fundamental questions as predictors of positive
parenting by inmates or the impact of prison visits on youth adjustment are
simply not to be found in the published literature. Regardless, because the
vast majority of inmates have sentences lasting only a few years, the inability
to interact regularly with children due to the physical constraints of
imprisonment is time limited. Most incarcerated parents will be released,
and a significant number will return to parenting roles with their children.

As noted in our developmental model, the parenting practices most proximal
and relevant to reduction of risk and increases in protection depend heavily
on the developmental level of the child. Of particular importance are parenting
behaviors during four stages of development. Before birth, critical issues
include mothers level of social and economic support, her diet, her
access to prenatal care, and her use of substances, including tobacco. During
the preschool years, critical issues shift to parents ability to teach
their children critical social skills, to regulate their emotions, and to
prepare them for the social demands of teachers and peers. During the elementary
school years, important issues become adapting to social demands while
simultaneously developing academic skills. Finally, during adolescence, issues
shift to monitoring child activities, friends, and whereabouts; mentoring
independent relationships with positive peers; discouraging relationships
with deviant peers; increasing responsibilities; and negotiating appropriate
limits.

Each of these factors has been targeted for change in parenting intervention
studies, and positive impacts have been found on numerous antecedents of
problem behaviors during early and middle childhood as well as on adolescent
antisocial behavior. We suggest that given the overwhelming number of risk
factors in the lives of many inmate families, a broad scale effort to decrease
the likelihood that the youth of incarcerated parents will themselves become
involved in antisocial behavior is probably in order, and such an effort
should be built around parenting interventions. This is not to discount the
potential benefits of work with children that is not family based. However,
the power of individual work (or group work, for that matter) with the issues
discussed in this paper has yet to be demonstrated convincingly (e.g., Taylor,
Eddy, & Biglan, 1999).

We envision a serious prevention effort as involving multiple systems of
care engaging in duties that they already do. This would include corrections
departments conducting scientifically-based parent education programs, but
on a broader scale than exists today and with both mothers and fathers; child
welfare departments conducting foster care, but providing the support and
skills training that are key to success in programs like MTFC and MST; youth
authorities providing residential or community services, but infusing those
services with MST and MTFC-like practices; and finally, community non-profits
delivering a variety of services that are also grounded in scientific evidence.
Each of these efforts should be informed by community members and groups
who have the skills and expertise needed to adapt existing proven
interventions so that they are culturally competent for members of the variety
of minority groups that are over represented in the corrections population
(see Eddy, Martinez, Lopez-Morgan, & Smith, in press; Hall, in press).
Finally, the outcomes of each of these efforts could be studied in a systematic
and ongoing way. The programs that do, in fact, help in a given locale could
be retained. Those that do not could be changed until they do or discontinued.

While this type of integrated work would certainly have a cost, over the
long run, and in concert with efforts in other sectors in the community,
it could make a difference in decreasing the prevalence of adolescent delinquency
and adult criminal behavior. In turn, this could have substantial benefits
in decreasing the costs due to incarceration. In contrast, what is unlikely
to make a difference over the long run is the piecemeal and limited approach
to prevention that is taken now in regards to the children of incarcerated
parents.

A vision of prevention such as this is all well and good. Making it happen
is another thing, particularly in a time of shrinking state budgets. However,
a long term vision is needed if the ballooning corrections budgets of today
are to be contained. In terms of scientific questions, the amount of information
that is lacking on the children of incarcerated parents is staggering.
Epidemiological studies are needed to gather information about the development
of these children across the lifespan. Vital questions such as what are the
characteristics of families who succeed in the face of incarceration versus
the characteristics of those who do not need to be answered. Such information
is key to the construction of developmental model that is appropriate to
this population (see Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994). Such models can then be
used to guide the creation of programs, and research on those programs can
help guide the creation of models of clinical change (see Eddy, Dishion,
& Stoolmiller, 1998). These models, in turn, can be used to fine tune
programs. Addressing the needs of the adolescents of incarcerated parents
requires a developmental approach that can only be accomplished with concerted
and long term collaborations among members of the public and private sectors,
including the federal government, private foundations, state legislatures,
corrections, child welfare, youth authorities, other service providers,
researchers, professional organizations, and community members. The time
to begin such collaborations is now.

Fisher, P. A., Ellis, B. H., & Chamberlain, P. (1999). Early intervention
foster care: A model for preventing risk in young children who have been
maltreated. Children services: Social policy, research, and
practice, 2(3), 159-182.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (2001). Youth Violence:
A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control; Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services; and National
Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health.